[1100] Cf. R. Howden, iii. 206; R. Coggeshall, 61, 62; Rigord, 123, 125, 126; _Chron. Rothomag., Rev. Gall. Scriptt._, xvii. 358; _Ann. Aquicinct_, _ib._, xviii. 546. The dates are conflicting, and Rigord’s chronology, in particular, is even more confused than usual just here; the other writers, especially the English ones, are safer guides. [1101] “Misit nuncios ad Imperatorem cum infinita pecunia, rogans attentius regem Angliae utpote hominem suum ei mitteret liberum, vel diutius retineret incarceratum.” Gerv. Cant., i. 516. [1102] Richard was there on May 26 and June 8; _Epp. Cant._, 364, 365; cf. Otto of S. Blaise, Pertz, xx. 324. [1103] W. Newb., lib. iv. c. 37, says 24th; R. Howden, iii. 212, says 25th. [1104] R. Howden, iii. 214; date, June, _Vita Alb. Leod._, Pertz, xxv. 168. [1105] “Totius Alemanniae generalis conventus magnates solos comprehendens,” says R. Diceto, ii. 110, who dates it July 5; but R. Howden, _l.c._, is obviously more accurate. [1106] William Brewer and Baldwin de Béthune. These latter arrived on June 28; R. Howden, _l.c._ [1107] R. Howden, iii. 214, 215. [1108] R. Howden, iii. 215, 216. [1109] John—whose restoration, however, was conditional; see R. Howden, iii. 217, 218;—the count of Angoulême, who in 1192-3 had stirred up another revolt in Aquitaine, invaded Poitou, and been made prisoner by its seneschal; see _Chron. S. Albini_, a. 1192, and R. Howden, iii. 194;—and the counts of Perche and Meulan, who had supported John’s intrigues in Normandy. [1110] Treaty in R. Howden, iii. 217-20. [1111] Letters in R. Howden, iii. 226, 227. [1112] _Ib._, 229. [1113] R. Howden, iii. 228-32. [1114] Letter of Archbishop Walter of Rouen in R. Diceto, ii. 112, 113. [1115] R. Howden, iii. 233. [1116] See Note V at end. [1117] Letter in R. Diceto, ii. 113. [1118] R. Howden, iii. 233, 234. [1119] R. Howden, iii. 234; cf. Gislebert of Mons, Pertz’s small edition, 250. The duke of Suabia was the emperor’s brother; the marquis of Montferrat was Boniface, brother and successor to Conrad. To the duke of Louvain Richard also granted the lands in England which had belonged to count Matthew of Boulogne, father of the duke’s wife, “ipsique duci contra comitem Flandriae et Hanoniae et marchisum Namurcensi auxilium promisit, ita quod saltem tantum comiti Flandriae et Hanoniae guerram facerent quod comes nequaquam domino regi Franciae auxilium ferre posset” (Gislebert, _l.c._). The Flemish chronicler adds: “Conventiones tamen eorum in nulla parte fuerunt observatae; nec mirum, cum rex Angliae nemini unquam vel fidem vel pactum servasset, nec omnes illi nominati cum quibus foedus firmaverat conventiones suas observare consuevissent” (_ib._, 250, 251). This is rather too sweeping, in view of the conduct of the allies in after-years. One of them at least, Boniface of Montferrat, received three hundred marks “de feodo suo” and ten marks as a present from Richard in 1197 (Stapleton, _Norman Exchequer Rolls_, ii. 301).